I don't agree. "in doubt" can also be a state.

define x
for a = 1 to 1000000000
y = y + 1 / a
next a
x = 2 + y

x is "in doubt" while calculating y

Doubt is a mental state.

So, why can't it be part of a deterministic system? The code example I gave is deterministic.

define x
for a = 1 to 1000000000
y = y + 1 / a
next a
x = 2 + y

x is "in doubt" while calculating y — Carlo Roosen

No, x is not determined while the program is calculating y.

So, why can't it be part of a deterministic system? The code example I gave is deterministic. — Carlo Roosen

I already explained. A deterministic system goes from one state to a unique state later so at each point in time there is only one state available to the system. There are two states to choose from when we have a doubt though.

In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it. But undefined means the same as doubt.

Look, it is not too difficult to write a computer program that implements doubt.

00 = false
11 = true
01 = doubt

By doubt I mean an experience of uncertainty in a situation. — MoK

In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it. But undefined means the same as doubt. — Carlo Roosen

No, undefined does not mean doubt.

You need to be more careful with your argumentation. You cannot just say the opposite of what I said. I gave an explanation of what I meant, you didn't. "In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it."

Only more modern program languages have "undefined" as a possible value for variables. Machine code hasn't

You need to be more careful with your argumentation. You cannot just say the opposite of what I said. I gave an explanation of what I meant, you didn't. "In my program there is a memory location reserved. It contains data. The interpreter or compiler has a check and generates an error if you want to print it before you define it." — Carlo Roosen

No, again undefined variable in your code does not represent a doubtful situation. I precisely defined doubt in OP and also gave an example of a situation in which an agent has doubt.

Then here our discussion ends because I also explained why this is not valid, you can perfectly have a state 'doubt' defined in a deterministic system.

Using your definition.

Look, it is not too difficult to write a computer program that implements doubt.

00 = false
11 = true
01 = doubt — Carlo Roosen

"01" does not represent a doubtful situation as I defined it in OP and gave an example of it.

One of the challenges on this forum is that people are not actually reading the responses of others, to the point that they really try to understand it. You cannot just state ""01" does not represent a doubtful situation as I defined it in OP" while I just claimed the opposite.

Discussion ends here until you provide a few logical steps that explain your point.

"01" is just a number. Isn't it? Are you saying that when a variable is "01" then the computer has doubt?

By doubt I mean an experience of uncertainty in a situation — MoK

One of the things that you need to make clear is whether doubt requires consciousness. You use the word "experience" in your definition, so it seems, yes. You end up with the conclusion that, based on this definition, there must be a mind. If by "mind" you also understand consciousness, then the whole argument collapses.

One of the things that you need to make clear is whether doubt requires consciousness. You use the word "experience" in your definition, so it seems, yes. — Carlo Roosen

Yes.

You end up with the conclusion that, based on this definition, there must be a mind. — Carlo Roosen

The existence of experience does not mean that there is a mind. The existence of doubt together with the ability that you can decide in a doubtful situation means that you have a mind given the fact that the brain is a deterministic entity.

The existence of experience does not mean that there is a mind. — MoK

That opens a can of worms. Okay, let others continue this. I've done what I can.

That opens a can of worms. Okay, let others continue this. I've done what I can. — Carlo Roosen

Pardon me! That does not open a can of worms but clears up the discussion. If you are interested in discussing mind and consciousness you at least need to have a basic knowledge about them. This wiki page provides the basics for you.

Look, you shove a term "experience" in your definition of doubt, and end up with a proof of "mind" at the other end. And you do this without explicitely pointing out what these two terms mean and how they relate. That is not a clear line of logic, it is confusing.

Instead, if you would define "doubt" without the need for "experience", you end up with my example program and there is no need for a mind at all.

That is what I call a can of worms. Don't feel offended, it is just that there is no end to the things you can discuss from here.

Look, you shove a term "experience" in your definition of doubt, and end up with a proof of "mind" at the other end. And you do this without explicitely pointing out what these two terms mean and how they relate. That is not a clear line of logic, it is confusing. — Carlo Roosen

No, my argument does not work like that, there is experience therefore there is a mind.

Instead, if you would define "doubt" without the need for "experience", you end up with my example program and there is no need for a mind at all. — Carlo Roosen

So according to you assigning a variable to be X which is arbitrary means that the computer has doubt.

Again, you are reacting emotionally without really trying to understand what I am saying. I am not your enemy, I try to make your idea more clear and get it more precise.

So according to you assigning a variable to be X which is arbitrary means that the computer has doubt — MoK

I am saying that without the need for "experience" your logic fails.

Again, you are reacting emotionally without really trying to understand what I am saying. I am not your enemy, I try to make your idea more clear and getting it more precise. — Carlo Roosen

I didn't say that you are my enemy. I would be happy to accept the error in my reasoning if you can show it. All I said was that my argument is not what you are saying.

I am saying that without the need for "experience" your logic fails. — Carlo Roosen

But you were not able to define a doubtful situation in which experience is not needed.

But you were not able to define a doubtful situation in which experience is not needed. — MoK

That is because experience is in your definition, and you do not accept my example. That is all fine, but it shows how thin the ice is your theory is standing on.

This medium is more difficult than talking face to face. I don't know you personally, I don't see your face how you read this. What I do see is a repetition of arguments that make no sense to me. If I say "A" and you say "not A", that doesn't help. I see it in the other post too, where you comment noAxioms, you do not really seem to understand what he is saying, while for me it makes perfect sense. Instead of asking clarification, you start opposing him. At some point I can no longer contribute.

All I said was that my argument is not what you are saying. — MoK

I did not try to repeat your argument, I said on one end you shove "experience" in and at the other end "mind" comes out. You cannot deny that. It is just not the full argument.

That is what I mean by : try to read the others arguments

That is because experience is in your definition, and you do not accept my example. — Carlo Roosen

Your example just does not make any sense to me. You said that the value 01 or whatever resembles a doubt. What do you want me to accept?

If you redefine doubt as a "situation of uncertainty", you can implement a software program that handles uncertainty, no problem, that is my "01". Then there is no mind needed, nor any of your reasoning.

Put "experience" back in the definition and yes, my program fails. And then you get a "mind" as a requirement. Since there are many opinions on mind and experience, you must make explicit what you mean by those terms in your case. And then you have to prove that the "mind" in the output is not simply caused by the "experience" you put in. I said, this is a can of worms.